122 A.3d 367
Pa. Super. Ct.2015Background
- Commonwealth appeals from orders precluding victims’ testimony because it refused to provide verbatim transcripts of PCA video interviews.
- Robinson, Green, and Baker faced multiple sex-offense and related charges arising from alleged abuse of minor victims.
- PCA conducted video forensic interviews; the Commonwealth supplied DVD copies to defense during discovery.
- In Green and Baker, the court ordered the Commonwealth to produce transcripts; in Robinson, PCA initially ordered to transcript but then court changed course.
- Commonwealth argued it fulfilled discovery; court found no authority to require transcription and precluded testimony; appellate court reversed.
- Appeals were consolidated and the court remanded for new trials.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion by precluding testimony for non-production of transcripts? | Robinson argues transcripts are necessary for fair cross-examination. | Commonwealth argues no duty to provide transcripts and that transcripts were burdensome. | Yes, court abused discretion; reversed and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 551 Pa. 622 (Pa. 1998) (trial court sanctions; dismissal only in extreme cases; purpose to vindicate authority of the court)
- Commonwealth v. Kolansky, 800 A.2d 937 (Pa. Super. 2002) (review standard for reversal of discretionary rulings; abuse of discretion requires manifest unreasonableness)
- Commonwealth v. Cam Ly, 602 Pa. 268 (Pa. 2009) (limits prosecution discovery rights; Brady-like framework; not a general discovery right)
- Commonwealth v. Haskins, 60 A.3d 538 (Pa. Super. 2012) (Brady obligations; materiality and exclusive control concepts)
- Commonwealth v. Roney, 622 Pa. 1 (Pa. 2013) (evidence available from other sources; not a violation if defense could access)